CTNF 18/026,328 CTNF 95254 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 39 , claim 39 requires to satisfy the equations (10) and (11). However, claim 29 claims the same equations (10) and (11). Currently claim 39 is dependent from claim 29. Therefore, claim 39 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: 07-15 AIA Claim s 21, 27, 29, 31-32, 34-35, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Kondakova et al. (“Highly efficient fluorescent-phosphorescent triplet harvesting hybrid organic light-emitting diodes”, J. Appl. Phys. 2010, vol. 107, page 014515-1 to -13, hereafter Kondakova) . Regarding claims 21, 27, 29, 31, 34-35, and 39-40 , Kondakova discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a sublayer (blue light emitting layer containing 98.5% CBP as a host and 1.5% MQAB as a fluorescent material), a sublayer (spacer layer containing Ga(pyimd)3), a sublayer (yellow light emitting layer containing 92% Ga(pyimd)3 and 8% Ir(ppy)2pc as a phosphorescent material) and a cathode, wherein the combination of three sublayers are equated with the at least one light emitting layer of the instant claim (Fig. 4 and page 5, column 1). PNG media_image1.png 301 722 media_image1.png Greyscale Kondakova discloses the HOMO energies of CBP, Ir(ppy)2pc, MQAB, and Ga(pyimd)3 each being <-5.68 eV, -5.37 eV, <-5.93 eV, and -5.77 eV and the triplet energies of CBP and Ir(ppy)2pc each being 2.67 eV and 2.36 eV (Table 1 and Fig. 4). Kondakova discloses photoluminescence spectra of MQAB at 77 K (Fig. 2A, dotted line), wherein the FWHM is from 459 nm to 470 nm which corresponds to 0.063 eV. Applicant claims the at least one FWHM emitter is to emit light with a FWHM of less than or equal to 0.25 eV; however, the claim does not require which emission spectrum (i.e. PL, EL, or anything else) at which temperature (i.e. 77K, RT, or anything else) to be obtained. The photoluminescence spectra of MQAB at 77K is originated from the fluorescence light of the compound MQAB; thus, MQAB reads on all the limitations of the small FWHM emitter of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claim 21, 27, 31, and 40 . The HOMO energies of CBP, Ir(ppy)2pc, and MQAB satisfies Equations (10) and (11), meeting all the limitations of claims 29 and 39 . The organic electroluminescent device of Kondakova reads on all the limitations of claims 34-35 because 1) the device is made to generate light under operational condition wherein electrical current flows through the device; and 2) the device emits non-zero intensity at least one of the claimed ranges. Regarding claim 32 , Kondakova discloses an organic electroluminescent device (Fig. 4 and page 5, column 1) comprising an anode, a sublayer (“blue light emitting layer” containing 98.5% CBP, 1.5% MQAB as a fluorescent material), a sublayer (“space layer” containing Ga(pyimd)3 as a host), a sublayer (“yellow light emitting layer” containing 92% Ga(pyimd)3 as a host and 8% Ir(ppy)2pc as a phosphorescent material) and a cathode, wherein the combination of three sublayers are equated with a light emitting layer. The FWHM of the fluorescent material MQAB is smaller than 0.25 as outlined above. The compound Ga(pyimd)3 reads on the claimed host having HOMO energy of -5.77 eV. Thus, the Organic electroluminescent device when Ga(pyimd)3 is interpreted as the host material of the instant claim still reads on the limitation of the claim 21. The weight ratio of Ga(pyimd)3, CBP, Ir(ppy)2, and MQAB in the light emitting layer is 74.8 : 21.4 : 3.5 : 0.3, meeting all the limitations of claim 32 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 2020/0136059 A1, hereafter Hong) in view of Murase et al. (JP 2003/151773 A, machined translated English version is referred to, hereafter Murase) as evidenced by Duran-Sampedro et al. (“Chlorinated BODIPYs: Surprisingly Efficient and Highly Photostable Laser Dyes”, Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2002, page 6335-6350, hereafter Duran-Sampedro), Li et al. (US 2021/0135142 A1, hereafter Li), and Park et al. (“Energy transfer from exciplexes to dopants and its effect on efficiency of organic light-emitting diodes”, J. Appl. Phys. 2011, vol. 110, page 124519-1 to -6, hereafter Park) . Regarding claims 21-23, 25-27, 31-32, 34-38 and 40 , Hong discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first light emitting layer including a first compound and a second compound, a second light emitting layer including a third compound and a fourth compound, and a third light emitting layer including a fifth compound and a sixth compound ([0048], [0165], Fig. 6). Hong exemplifies an organic electroluminescent device an anode, a hole injection layer, a first light emitting layer (99 wt% Compound FH-1 as a host and 1 wt% FD-1 as a dopant), a second light emitting layer (70 wt% TH-17 as a host and 30 wt% TD-2 (4CzIPN) as a dopant), and a third light emitting layer (B3PYMPM as a host, FD-1 as a dopant), and a cathode ([0218]). PNG media_image2.png 655 672 media_image2.png Greyscale Hong does not exemplify a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the Compound FD-3 as the second compound; however, Hong does teach that the Compound FD-3 can be used as the second compound ([0139]). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescent device of Hong by substituting the compound FD-1 with FD-3, as taught by Hong. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The modification provides Modified organic electroluminescent device of Hong an anode, a hole injection layer, a first light emitting layer (99 wt% Compound FH-1 as a host and 1 wt% FD-3 as a dopant), a second light emitting layer (70 wt% TH-17 as a host and 30 wt% TD-2 as a dopant), and a third light emitting layer (B3PYMPM as a host, FD-1 as a dopant), and a cathode. The device of Hong does not include a phosphorescent material; however, Hong does teach that the second and sixth compounds can be a fluorescent or phosphorescent material ([0166]). Hong exemplifies Compound PD-2 as the phosphorescent material ([0141]). Murase discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising both fluorescent and phosphorescent materials ([0009]). Murase teaches a pyrromethene compound represented by Formulas (1) and (2) as the fluorescent material ([0020]-[0021], [0025]). The Compound FD-3 of Hong is encompassed by the Formula (1) of Murase. Murase teaches Ir(ppy)3 as the phosphorescent material (compound (24) in [0037]). The Compound PD-2 of Hong has similar structure as Ir(ppy)3 of Murase. Murase teaches 1:1 weight ratio of the fluorescent and phosphorescent materials in the device ([0049]). Murase teaches use of the fluorescent and phosphorescent light emitting materials in the organic electroluminescent device provides high luminous efficiency and excellent durability ([0008], [0015]). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic electroluminescent device of Hong by incorporating a phosphorescent Compound PD-2 of Hong in the first and third light emitting layers to make a mixed material with the Compound FD-3 having a mixing ratio of 1:1 in weight, as taught by Hong and Murase. The motivation of doing so would have been to provides high luminous efficiency and excellent durability, based on the teaching of Murase. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The modification provides Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a first light emitting layer (99 wt% Compound FH-1 as a host, 0.5 wt% PD-2 as a dopant, and 0.5 wt% FD-3 as a dopant), a second light emitting layer (70 wt% TH-17 as a host and 30 wt% TD-2 as a dopant), and a third light emitting layer (B3PYMPM as a host, PD-2 as a dopant, and FD-3 as a dopant), and a cathode. The combination of the first and the second light emitting layers are equated with at least one light emitting layer of the instant claim. The first and the second light emitting layers are each equated with a sublayer. The Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase is equated with a device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer including a 2 nd sublayer (99 wt% Compound FH-1 as a host, 0.5 wt% PD-2 as a dopant, and 0.5 wt% FD-3 as a dopant) and a 1 st sublayer (70 wt% TH-17 as a host and 30 wt% TD-2 as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound TH-17 is a host material; Compound PD-2 is a phosphorescent material; Compound FD-3 is a small FWHM emitter; and the Compound TD-2 is a TADF material. With respect to claims 21 and 36, Murase teaches the HOMO energy of the Compound TH-17 is -6.0 eV (Table 1). With respect to claim 22, Murase teaches the fourth compound including the Compound TD-2 is a delayed fluorescent material ([0143]). With respect to claim 25, the claim recites “at least one sublayer … comprises exactly one TADF material and exactly one phosphorescent material” the device of Hong as modified by Murase has two sublayers in the interpretation above. The at least one sublayer (i.e. the 1 st sublayer and the 2 nd sublayer) comprises exactly one TADF material (TD-2) and exactly one phosphorescent material (PD-2). The compound TD-2 is the only TADF material because other materials are not TADF material, and the compound PD-2 is the only one phosphorescent material because other materials are not phosphorescent material. With respect to claim 27, Murase teaches the third compound including the Compound TH-17 has a carbazole moiety having p-type property ([0122]). Thus, the Compound TH-17 of Murase is a p-host. With respect to claim 32, Murase teaches the thickness of the 1 st and the 2 nd light emitting layers are each 10 nm and 20 nm ([0218]); thus, the weight ratio of Compounds FH-1: PD-2: FD-3:TH-17:TD-2 is 33:0.17:0.17:46.7:20. The Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach properties 1) the FWHM of Compound FD-3 is less than or equal to 0.25 eV (claim 21); 2) the Compound TD-2 is TADF material with a difference between E(S1E) and the E(T1E) being less than 0.4 eV and a PLQY being more than 30% (claims 22-23); and 3) the emitter Compound FD-3 emits light having a peak wavelength of 520 nm (claim 35). It is reasonable to presume the device of Hong as modified by Murase inherently possesses the properties 1) to 3) above. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property. The instant specification states that the organic electroluminescent device of the instant invention comprises a small FWHM emitter, wherein the FWHM is less than or equal to 0.25 eV (page 3, paragraph 3). Applicant states that BODIPY-based emitters can be a suitable small FWHM emitter (page 146-147). Compound FD-3 of Hong has similar structure as the BDDIPY-based emitters. Additionally, Duran-Sampedro evidences Compound 12 of Duran-Sampedro (Scheme 1) has FWHM is around 40 nm (from 510 nm to 550 nm in Fig. 5a) which corresponds to around 0.18 eV. Duran-Sampedro evidences Compound 12 emits light having a peak wavelength of 520 nm (Fig. 5a). The Compound FD-3 of Hong has similar structure as the Compound 12 of Duran-Sampedro such that their optoelectronic properties including FWHM should be substantially similar. The instant specification states that the TADF material has a difference between E(S1E) and the E(T1E) being less than 0.4 eV (page 63, line 13) and the TADF emitter according to the invention exhibits PLQY being equal to or higher than 30% (page 64 line 5). The instant specification states that a compound having the same structure as the Compound TD-2 of Hong is a TADF material (the 5 th compound on page 109, and “4CzIPN” on page 65). Thus, the Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase possesses the properties 1) to 3) above. The device emits light having a peak wavelength of 520 nm as outlined above. The Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase reads on all the limitations of claims 21-23, 25-27, 31-32, 36-38 and 40 . The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80. The organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase reads on all the limitations of claims 34-35 because 1) the device is made to generate light under operational condition wherein electrical current flows through the device; and 2) the device emits non-zero intensity at least one of the claimed ranges. Regarding claim 25 , the Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase reads on all the features of claim 21 as outlined above. The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a first light emitting layer (99 wt% Compound FH-1 as a host, 0.5 wt% PD-2 as a dopant, and 0.5 wt% FD-3 as a dopant), a second light emitting layer (70 wt% TH-17 as a host and 30 wt% TD-2 as a dopant), and a third light emitting layer (B3PYMPM as a host, PD-2 as a dopant, and FD-3 as a dopant), and a cathode. The instant claim 21 does not require the claimed light emitting layer to be a homogeneous mixture of constituent materials over the entire space of the light emitting layer, indicating a composite layer comprising multiple light emitting layers can be considered a single light emitting layer. Similarly, the instant claim 21 do not require a sublayer to be a homogenous mixture of constituent materials over the entire space of the sublayer, indicating a composite layer comprising multiple layers can be considered a single sublayer. That is, combination of multiple layers can be interpreted as a single layer. Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase is equated with a device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer containing FH-1, PD-2, FD-3, TH-17, and TD-2, and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer is equated with a single sublayer. In the device, the compound TD-2 is the only one TADF material because other materials are not TADF material, and the compound PD-2 is the only one phosphorescent material because other materials are not phosphorescent material. Regarding claims 24, 28, and 30 , the Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase reads on all the features of claim 21 as outlined above. The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer including a 2 nd sublayer (99 wt% Compound FH-1 as a host, 0.5 wt% PD-2 as a dopant, and 0.5 wt% FD-3 as a dopant) and a 1 st sublayer (70 wt% TH-17 as a host and 30 wt% TD-2 as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound TH-17 is a host material; Compound PD-2 is a phosphorescent material; Compound FD-3 is a small FWHM emitter; and the Compound TD-2 is a TADF material; and the device emits light having a peak wavelength of 520 nm. The singlet energy of the compound FD-3 (2.4 eV) is not smaller than the triplet energy of compound PD-2 (2.4 eV), which does not read on the limitation of the claims. However, Hong does teach that the second compound can be a fluorescent material and is not limited to the specific examples including the compound FD-3 ([0139]). Murase discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising both fluorescent and phosphorescent materials ([0009]). PNG media_image3.png 319 465 media_image3.png Greyscale Murase teaches a pyrromethene compound represented by Formulas (1) and (2) and used as the fluorescent material ([0020]-[0021], [0025]) and exemplifies Compound (1) ([0028]). Murase teaches use of the fluorescent and phosphorescent light emitting materials in the organic electroluminescent device provides high luminous efficiency and excellent durability ([0008], [0015]). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase by substituting the Compound FD-3 of Hong with Compound (1) of Murase, as taught by Hong and Murase. The motivation of doing so would have been to provides high luminous efficiency and excellent durability, based on the teaching of Murase. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The modification provides Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase (2) comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a first light emitting layer (99 wt% Compound FH-1 as a host, 0.5 wt% PD-2 as a dopant, and 0.5 wt% Compound (1) of Murase as a dopant), a second light emitting layer (70 wt% TH-17 as a host and 30 wt% TD-2 as a dopant), and a third light emitting layer (B3PYMPM as a host, PD-2 as a dopant, and Compound (1) of Murase as a dopant), and a cathode. The combination of the first and the second light emitting layers are equated with at least one light emitting layer of the instant claim. The first and the second light emitting layers are each equated with a sublayer. The Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase (2) is equated with a device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer including a 2 nd sublayer (99 wt% Compound FH-1 as a host, 0.5 wt% PD-2 as a dopant, and 0.5 wt% Compound (1) of Murase as a dopant) and a 1 st sublayer (70 wt% TH-17 as a host and 30 wt% TD-2 as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound TH-17 is a host material; Compound PD-2 is a phosphorescent material; Compound (1) of Murase is a small FWHM emitter; and the Compound TD-2 is a TADF material, wherein the HOMO energy of the Compound TH-17 is -6.0 eV (Table 1). The Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase (2) reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach 1) the FWHM of Compound (1) of Murase is less than or equal to 0.25 eV (claim 21); and 2) the claimed energy relationships of Applicant’s equations (1) through (4). It is reasonable to presume the device of Hong as modified by Murase (2) inherently possesses the properties 1) and 2) above. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property. The instant specification states that the organic electroluminescent device of the instant invention comprises a small FWHM emitter, wherein the FWHM is less than or equal to 0.25 eV (page 3, paragraph 3). Applicant states that BODIPY-based emitters can be a suitable small FWHM emitter (page 146-147), which has similar structure as the Compound (1) of Murase (the 4 th compound on page 148). Li evidences the HOMO, LUMO, S1, and T1 energies of Compound D-5 of Li are each -5.3 eV, -3.35 eV, 2.15 eV, and 1.6 eV (Table 4) PNG media_image4.png 291 466 media_image4.png Greyscale The Compound D-5 of Li has similar structure as the Compound (1) of Murase; thus, the electronic properties of both compounds should be similar. The HOMO, LUMO, S1, and T1 energies of Compound (1) of Murase should be -5.3 eV, -3.35 eV, 2.15 eV, and 1.6 eV. PNG media_image5.png 651 669 media_image5.png Greyscale Therefore, the Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase possesses the properties 1) and 2) above, meeting all the limitations of claims 24, 28, and 30 . The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase (2) is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80. Regarding claims 29 and 39 , the Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase reads on all the features of claim 21 as outlined above. The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer including a 2 nd sublayer (99 wt% Compound FH-1 as a host, 0.5 wt% PD-2 as a dopant, and 0.5 wt% FD-3 as a dopant) and a 1 st sublayer (70 wt% TH-17 as a host and 30 wt% TD-2 as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound TH-17 is a host material; Compound PD-2 is a phosphorescent material; Compound FD-3 is a small FWHM emitter; and the Compound TD-2 is a TADF material; and the device emits light having a peak wavelength of 520 nm. PNG media_image6.png 655 675 media_image6.png Greyscale The HOMO energy of compound PD-2 (-5.9 eV) is not higher than the HOMO energy of FD-3 (-5.9 eV); however, Hong does teach the other materials satisfying the claimed HOMO relationships. Hong teaches that the fluorescent dopant can be Compound FD-1 ([0139], HOMO energy -6.0 eV in Table 1). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase by substituting the fluorescent dopant with Compound FD-1, as taught by Hong. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified fluorescent dopant materials of Hong in the device of Hong would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The modification provides the Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase (3) comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer including a 2 nd sublayer (99 wt% Compound FH-1 as a host, 0.5 wt% PD-2 as a dopant, and 0.5 wt% FD-1 as a dopant) and a 1 st sublayer (70 wt% TH-17 as a host and 30 wt% TD-2 as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound TH-17 is a host material; Compound PD-2 is a phosphorescent material; Compound FD-1 is a small FWHM emitter; and the Compound TD-2 is a TADF material; and the HOMO energy of compound PD-2 (-5.9 eV) is higher than the HOMO energy of Compound TH-17 (-6.0 eV) and the HOMO energy of compound FD-1 (-6.0 eV). Regarding claim 33 , Hong in view of Murase teaches the Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a first light emitting layer (Compound FH-1 as a host, PD-2 as a dopant, and FD-3 as a dopant), a second light emitting layer (TH-17 as a host, TD-2 as a dopant), and a third light emitting layer (B3PYMPM as a host, PD-2 as a dopant, and FD-3 as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the FWHM of the compound FD-3 is less than or equal to 0.25 eV, as outlined above. The interpretation of the light emitting layer and the sublayer above is changed to read on the limitation of claim 33. The device is interpreted as having three light emitting layers and each light emitting layer is exactly one sublayer. The third light emitting layer reads on the limitation of the at least one light emitting layer of the instant claim 33. PNG media_image7.png 310 472 media_image7.png Greyscale Park evidences the HOMO energy of the compound B3PYMPM is -6.77 eV (Fig. 1a) which is lower than -5.60 eV. The Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase is equated with a device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer (B3PYMPM as a host, PD-2 as a dopant, and FD-3 as a dopant) and a cathode, wherein the Compound B3PYMPM is a host material; Compound PD-2 is a phosphorescent material; Compound FD-3 is a small FWHM emitter; the FWHM of the compound FD-3 is less than or equal to 0.25 eV; the HOMO energy of the compound B3PYMPM is smaller than -5.60 eV; and the light emitting layer is exactly one sublayer . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 2020/0136059 A1) in view of Murase et al. (JP 2003/151773 A, machined translated English version is referred to) as applied to claims 21-40 as outlined above, further in view of Lynch et al. (US 2013/0082908 A1, hereafter Lynch) . Regarding claims 34-35 , the Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase reads on all the features of claim 21 as outlined above. The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer including a 2 nd sublayer (99 wt% Compound FH-1 as a host, 0.5 wt% PD-2 as a dopant, and 0.5 wt% FD-3 as a dopant) and a 1 st sublayer (70 wt% TH-17 as a host and 30 wt% TD-2 as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound TH-17 is a host material; Compound PD-2 is a phosphorescent material; Compound FD-3 is a small FWHM emitter; and the Compound TD-2 is a TADF material; and the device emits light having a peak wavelength of 520 nm. Hong in view of Murase does not disclose a display device comprising the Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase; however, Hong does teach the organic electroluminescent device can be applied to a display device ([0026]). Lynch discloses a display device including a cellular phone ([0003], Fig. 5) comprising a light emitting device (“OLED display panel”) ([0006]). Lynch teaches the display device comprises a display part (12 in Fig. 1) and a power source such as battery (28 in Fig. 1 and [0019]). Lynch further teaches that the display part includes a light emitting element (“OLED stack” in [0038]). Lynch teaches that the display device provides good heat control ([0001]). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase by incorporating it into a cellular phone, as taught by Hong, Murase, and Lynch. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide with a cellular phone having a good heat control, based on the teaching of Lynch. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of organic electroluminescent devices in a cellular phone would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The modification provides a cellular phone comprising the Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase. The cellular phone has a power source of battery such that the cellular phone is intended to generate light by applying electrical current to the Organic electroluminescent device of Hong as modified by Murase from the battery, wherein the light has a peak wavelength of 520 nm. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 2 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 3 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 4 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 5 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 6 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 7 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 8 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 9 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 10 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 11 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 12 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 13 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 14 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 15 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 16 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 17 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 18 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/026,328 Page 19 Art Unit: 1786
